Alito Confirmed

Blah blah, let's see where this takes us. Anyway...

Chaffee voted against Alito. Good on him for actually representing the views of his state. There's been a lot of discussion about him and NARAL, and I'm glad to see he's not wholly an empty suit.

Kerry's filibuster attempt. Clearly the definition of lame, and yet...

I am unimpressed by arguments that since he made the call from Switzerland, he is not only politically stupid but morally depraved and all around sucky. I may understand xenophobia in terms of political necessity, but I'm not going to yell about how elitist other countries are and that leaders need to avoid them.

And there's something here about the long game. Politicians need to pay more attention to the future, and act now based on what they know will be true then - instead of what appears true now. There is a very good chance Alito will overturn Roe v Wade, or be a deciding vote in some other horrible Supreme Court decision. The American people seem to feel they don't support overturning Roe v Wade, but the Democrats have failed to capitalize on this because they have failed to connect overturning RvW and the passage of Alito. Unfortunate but true.

However, when RvW is overturned (or some other hot button judicial decision happens), that connection will be easy. If it comes before 2008, you know what? Kerry will say "I did what I could to stop it. Where were you Hillary? Why didn't you filibuster this man?" No one will care that he was at Davos at the time.

PS: I don't know if Kerry intends to run in 2008, or what any of his personal goals for the rest of his Senate career are. But in terms of any future with the left, I think saying "I did everything I could to stop Alito" will be an asset.

Difficult Unravelings

One of the reasons it's so annoying to see political hay made out of legal decisions, is because legal arguments are very complicated and generally have a lot more going on that just the policy at hand.

For instance, the most recent SCOTUS ruling on federal action against the Oregonian referendum on assisted suicide. They struck down attempts at federal intervention (at least by the executive branch).

George Will decided to burnish his conservative-contrarian credentials by praising the "anti-pro-life" ruling as conservative. The SCOTUS decided to let the Oregon law stand, after all and bowed to democratic will.

The three dissenters—John Roberts and Clarence Thomas embracing Antonin Scalia's argument—favored striking down the law that Oregonians passed in a 1994 referendum and resoundingly reaffirmed by a 60 percent vote against a 1997 attempt to repeal it. The dissent by the three conservatives could be characterized as liberal—judicial activism favoring the federal government's aggrandizement of its power at the expense of federalism.

Except well, executive action counts as democratic will as well. The president was legally elected, and what the court actually did was overrule the actions the federal government wanted to take.*

The issue was a matter of competition between two democratic bodies, and the court was simply interpreting a congressional law as to decide who held precedence here, for now. Not some "activist" scenario pitting a clear democratic will and some arcane interpretation of the constitution. And in fact this is what high courts in every republic deal with every day, as these are very important issues.

Points?

1) Simply praising one side of the ruling or the other as "democratic" or "judicial activist" is myopic and simplistic. And thus such descriptions are largely based on partisan motivation.

2) We need to be appointing our justices on better things than their view of when life begins and ends.

-------
*Yes, it could supposedly be viewed as a federal vs state issue then. Well the who judicial activism label isn't about deferring specifically to state authority. And more importantly, the court isn't choosing to say states get final say, but rather whether a Congressional law passed years ago gives the executive power to overrule states, taking into account the previous judicial and executive interpretations. As said previously, these things get really complicated.

"Truce" and Democratic talking points

The right wing is getting a lot of hey from this offer of Bin Laden asking for a truce or whatnot. It shows Bush's war is working, and it has implicit connotations of liberals who would seek peace. Here's what I think the proper liberal response would be.

Would we make a truce with Lee Harvey Oswald, or the DC sniper? No.

Would we make a truce with Stalin or Pol Pot, or if possible Hitler? Yeah.

What's the difference? You make treaties with heads of state, not criminals.

Osama (and the problem of terrorism) should be dealt with that way. He is a criminal who follows no agreements, has no tangible power-base, and would be quickly replaced if he individually conceded.

Terrorism is a police problem.

Pay Raises

TAPPED and MyDD are mentioning Congressional salary, raises, and why it’s silly that we pay the legislative branch so little. One of the commentators depicts an interesting point.

http://www.mydd.com/comments/2005/12/27/18428/723/10#10

With this topic, people should just expect a feingold plug... so here it is:

One of the very few such spoilsports is Senator Russell Feingold, a liberal Wisconsin Democrat who for several years has introduced an amendment to stop the pay raise, and each time has seen his amendment tabled -- i.e., killed without being debated and voted on -- by a lopsided Senate majority.

"I object to the process," he said during a phone conversation last week. "This automatic, stealth pay-raise system is absolutely wrong. Especially now, when we're running the biggest deficits in US history, when so many people are out of work -- I find it startling that Congress would feel comfortable voting itself a pay raise."

And what kind of reaction does he get from his colleagues when he offers his amendment?

"It's not my most popular moment," Feingold concedes. "I get the coldest stares." Some senators try to reason with him. "They tell me about their kids' tuition. Or they say, 'Don't you think you're worth more money?' " He tells them that if they think they deserve an increase, they should be willing to vote for one.

Feingold puts his own money where his mouth is, refusing any increase in pay during each six-year senatorial term. Though he is perhaps the least affluent member of the Senate, he has returned more than $50,000 to the Treasury over the past 11 years. Meanwhile, multimillionaire senators like Ted Kennedy, Jon Corzine, and Majority Leader Bill Frist vote to table Feingold's amendment and preserve the annual stealth pay raise.

Which is why pay raises won’t happen. It’s so incredibly easy for any congresscritter to say they are fighting against DC fat cats and vote against pay raises. Given that most of their expenses are handled by independent wealth or campaign related expenses, the money they get from Congress is trivial. A cheesy press release to the folks back home is worth far more than the extra $50,000 in salary (or at least voting for it).

It’s possible that this discourages lower-class representatives or better talent, or more likely encourages corruption. The State of Texas has had a really interesting history of paying its representatives very little and making them dependent on large donors for a decent lifestyle (Read Caro’s Lyndon Johnson biography). In Britain, a law that meant MP’s would actually be paid was a big deal to the nascent labor movement.

In this day and age, Senators can become so incredibly wealthy (especially once you consider future expected earnings as a lobbyist) that it’s probably trivial and returning to a $1 would no longer have a noticeable effect. In comparison, the wages of Congressional staff, or the bureaucrats who are all tied to the same pay scale, is probably more relevant and does more to distort the quality of our government. However, the wider you propose to spread this pay raise, then the more expensive it will be. By following the free-market, Congress has simply found a way to staff its offices and agencies fully with as little money as possible – the free market does not care much about the quality or background biases of this staff.

Anyway, as Feingold’s comments demonstrate, this is all wankery since such bills are extremely unlikely to get passed. Liberals should just keep in mind that reducing Congressional salary does not “save the People money” but rather “guarantees Joe Union Six-Pack can’t even consider running for office.” And I find this type of populist demagoguery on the same level as Hillary’s recent anti-flag-burning amendment.

FISA

There’s been a decent amount of posting about how the Democrats, by even getting angry at the FISA scandal, are taking Republican bait ( Ross, PPI, etc). The idea is that to the public you can never be viewed as “too extreme on National Security”. If there was graft or stupidity sure, but simply breaking some civil liberties in order to find Osama bin Laden will always… well not be appreciated, but at least won’t hurt you in the long run. It’s the theory of costly signals – you say something that appears harmful to you (such as illegal wiretaps), but when people wonder what side you are on, there is never any doubt. It simply means that when the next election comes around, people will still think of Republicans as the party of more national security, any attempts to make equivalence on the issue by Democrats will be ruined, and since people always want more national security, they’ll vote Republican. This isn’t to say the whole scandal is a Republican ploy, but just rather that people on both the right and left are saying Democrats (for their sake) should shut up.

The presumption here lies in thinking National Security is always the trump suit. Running explicitly on dove-ishness doesn’t win elections, no, but if the American people always valued strong national security over everything else, then we’d already be an authoritarian state. Americans know the important of moderation, and they also value civil liberties. It is the responsibility of our leaders to demonstrate when there is a cost-benefit calculation that needs to be made. If the public wishes, the President could start doing constitutionally questionable activities without asking the authorization of Congress or informing the public, because our enemy is just that dangerous. Or the public could wish otherwise. The important thing for Democrats and their media-representatives to do is present the costs and benefits of this situation, and allow the public’s wish for civil liberties and checks and balances to assert itself.

In short: as the landscape stands, this scandal isn't helpful to the Democrats, but the point of this scandal is to change the landscape.

Ohio Senate Race Watch

Sherrod Brown is becoming the most likely winner of a Democratic primary in the Ohio Senate Race. How unfortunate then, that he voted for the ANWR provision in the most recent House of Representatives vote. On background, the House Defense budget bill had ANWR oil drilling thrown in at the last minute (as a clear violation of budget procedure of course), and Democrats were put at risk of voting for ANWR or voting against money the troops need. It’s a pretty nasty thing to do that completely subverts democracy, but whatever, this is what politics is about.

I even understand a representative who is in a close race in a moderate state voting for it, especially when the real hope for defeat of ANWR lies in the Senate. But what disturbs me is his response given to the http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/news/1135247827222690.xml&coll=2&thispage=2>Cleveland Plains Dealer ‘Brown, asked why he didn’t make a protest vote against the military-ANWR bill, said, “I don’t do protest votes when soldiers’ lives are at stake.”’

I’m happy getting someone elected to balance Ohio’s representation, on moderate compromise votes, that’s great. But using the enemies rhetoric to rationalize it and provide more ammunition for attacking the Democrats who were willing to stand up to this abuse of power, is something I really rather not see in the Senate. Any Democrat who cringes whenever they see Joe Lieberman come on TV and bash anyone who questions the President, should keep a closer eye on Brown too.

Ohio Senate Race Watch

Sherrod Brown is becoming the most likely winner of a Democratic primary in the Ohio Senate Race. How unfortunate then, that he voted for the ANWR provision in the most recent House of Representatives vote. On background, the House Defense budget bill had ANWR oil drilling thrown in at the last minute (as a clear violation of budget procedure of course), and Democrats were put at risk of voting for ANWR or voting against money the troops need. It’s a pretty nasty thing to do that completely subverts democracy, but whatever, this is what politics is about.

I even understand a representative who is in a close race in a moderate state voting for it, especially when the real hope for defeat of ANWR lies in the Senate. But what disturbs me is his response given to the http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/news/1135247827222690.xml&coll=2&thispage=2

>Cleveland Plains Dealer ‘Brown, asked why he didn’t make a protest vote against the military-ANWR bill, said, “I don’t do protest votes when soldiers’ lives are at stake.”’

I’m happy getting someone elected to balance Ohio’s representation, on moderate compromise votes, that’s great. But using the enemies rhetoric to rationalize it and provide more ammunition for attacking the Democrats who were willing to stand up to this abuse of power, is something I really rather not see in the Senate. Any Democrat who cringes whenever they see Joe Lieberman come on TV and bash anyone who questions the President, should keep a closer eye on Brown too.

Good posts on FISA scandal:

Good posts on FISA scandal:

Crooked Timber listing the various rhetorical devices used to cover up this scandal.

Yglesias describes how this is the sort of thing you get when all you ever need in an argument is “my motivations are pure”.

Shrug. All I can feel is once again ire at people who trust in the limits set by legalisms. If the people of the country feel torture and indiscriminate wire-tapping is wrong, we should at least try to elect people who actually feel that it is wrong too, not hope they are kept in check by dead pieces of paper.

Good posts on FISA scandal:

Good posts on FISA scandal:

Crooked Timber listing the various rhetorical devices used to cover up this scandal.

Yglesias describes how this is the sort of thing you get when all you ever need in an argument is “my motivations are pure”.

Shrug. All I can feel is once again ire at people who trust in the limits set by legalisms. If the people of the country feel torture and indiscriminate wire-tapping is wrong, we should at least try to elect people who actually feel that it is wrong too, not hope they are kept in check by dead pieces of paper.

War on Christmas-tide

Sullivan is taking a break, and has two center-right bloggers covering for him. I really don’t get why so many people respect Douthat, but that being said, the first posts are good. Especially endearing to see all these intellectual right-wing dismissals of the War-on-Christmas stuff. It’s very reminiscent of all the intellectual right-wingers who doubted Bush in 2004 and felt he had veered too far from true conservatism. They’re riding the bull, but I don’t think they are in control. Gay Marriage won 2004, not Iraq policy, and in this case there is probably good reason the Bill O’Reilly’s of the world continue harping on the War on Christmas even as their elite columnists and whatnot know it’s silly demagoguery.

Let me break the War on Christmas down real easy. About 60-80% of the country is Christian, depending on how strict your definition of Christian is. If Christmas is a Christian holiday, then you can only sell Christmas trees to 70% of the people. If Christmas is a secular holiday though, then you can sell Christmas trees to everyone. Now if you sell Christmas trees (with a 70% chance of being Christian yourself), how are you going to describe Christmas?

It’s generally ignored how much cultural power our private corporations have in this country, because we generally trust the free-market to not do evil manipulative cultural things. When it is in their interest to generate a large cultural shift however, there should be no doubt that they are a force that can crush atheist university professors or fundamentalist Christian televangelists in one fell swoop.

I do find it rather interesting that self-styled populists like O’Reilly don’t take more opportunity to bash commercial institutions for their role in this as well. Sounds like a perfect double-shot to me.

Lastly, one nice description here:

The New Yorker is just a microcosm, but the larger reality is that while there isn't a war against Christmas, there is a significant chunk of this country - the most educated chunk, the chunk that runs the high-minded magazines and writes for the big newspapers and makes most of the movies (the sudden interest in the Christian market notwithstanding) and teaches at the major universities and generally controls the commanding heights of the culture - that doesn't much care for Christianity, at least if it's practiced seriously and its basic dogmas are left intact. This reality is what drives the siege mentality among many Christians, and the popularity of O'Reilly-style conspiracy theorizing - the awareness that our majority-Christian country is saddled, for some reason, with an elite that approaches religious belief with a mix of bemusement, ignorance, and fear.

Of course the other side, the secular elite, feels under siege as well - they're in the minority, they don't control the the government, they thought we were past all that Christianity stuff, and they can't quite understand why a twenty-first century educated class should have to put up with a bunch of benighted yahoos who buy tickets to The Passion of the Christ and elect Presidents like George W. Bush. (The Europeans don't have to deal with this kind of nonsense, after all . . .) So everybody feels disempowered, and everybody has a point - which is why the Christmas wars are fake, but the culture war is real.

Except of course, when those blue-state-elites are actually in the majority (2000 presidential, 2004 senatorial), but because they live in the wrong cluster of places, they still lose. That sort of thing adds to siege mentality, because it’s much harder to get more than 52% of the populace than it is to get more than 50%.